[QUOTE=ramgeis;506979]All but one graph cover 180 days. What's the reason for that one covering only 30 days?[/QUOTE]

Umm... you know, I'm not sure why I did that. Let me fiddle with it and see if it still looks okay over a longer time period. I feel like there was a reason I didn't and maybe I'll rediscover that reason. :smile:

EDIT: You can try this out... I bumped all of them to 365 days. I think what happened was at first I didn't generate data going back that far, and certain things like the assignments per day couldn't be retroactively discovered (since assignment info is removed when the result is checked in). If this is info overload, or Google graphs are slow to show, I can roll it back to something like 180 days again.
[URL="https://www.mersenne.org/primenet/graphs.mock.php"]Graphs - Test[/URL]

FYI, I was worried when I saw the stats for 2019-01-27 ... the GHz-days was super high again and I thought "oh great, someone did it again".

Well, dug into it and TheJudger turned in a bunch of TF results in the 2^76 to 2^77 range, like 8400+ of them.

Just wanted to throw that out there if anyone else notices it.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;506986]If this is info overload, or Google graphs are slow to show, I can roll it back to something like 180 days again.
[URL="https://www.mersenne.org/primenet/graphs.mock.php"]Graphs - Test[/URL][/QUOTE]

IMO, comparing the two (mock vs. current) I find the 180 day rendering easier to work with, particularly the "New results per day" graph.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;506997]Well, dug into it and TheJudger turned in a bunch of TF results in the 2^76 to 2^77 range, like 8400+ of them.[/QUOTE]

LOL... Yeah, the [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/lltf/week/"]dude has some kit[/URL]! :smile:

I actually had to implement code to average out the submitted results over the period of time they were assigned. Otherwise, for [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/worker_exact/6e67460a77a11a707a665a6270df1a82/"]big guns like Oliver[/URL] who submit in baches, [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/overall/graph/month/"]the graphs[/URL] become uselessly unreadable because of the huge spikes!

[QUOTE=chalsall;507023]LOL... Yeah, the [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/lltf/week/"]dude has some kit[/URL]! :smile:

I actually had to implement code to average out the submitted results over the period of time they were assigned. Otherwise, for [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/worker_exact/6e67460a77a11a707a665a6270df1a82/"]big guns like Oliver[/URL] who submit in baches, [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/overall/graph/month/"]the graphs[/URL] become uselessly unreadable because of the huge spikes![/QUOTE]

It's nuts that he can do as much work in a week as I can do in a year.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;506986] If this is info overload, or Google graphs are slow to show, I can roll it back to something like 180 days again.
[URL="https://www.mersenne.org/primenet/graphs.mock.php"]Graphs - Test[/URL][/QUOTE]


It is nice to have smooth graphs with the Google API but it is a bit weird to see them in the negative region.

[QUOTE=ramgeis;506761]Hm, might this be related to something I just noticed when submitting the results for [URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=96312169&exp_hi=&full=1&ecmhist=1"]M96312169[/URL]?
I don't know what exactly happened there as I can't see the assignment history.
For me this looks like the exponent has been reassigned to me... or I messed up the worktodo file.[/QUOTE]
Ok, when looking at [URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=96312371&full=1"]M96312371[/URL] it looks like the exponent has been reassigned to me after I reported the result. :(

[QUOTE=ramgeis;507083]It is nice to have smooth graphs with the Google API but it is a bit weird to see them in the negative region.[/QUOTE]Should be fixable with
options.vAxis.viewWindow: { min: 0 }

[QUOTE=ramgeis;507084]Ok, when looking at [URL="https://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=96312371&full=1"]M96312371[/URL] it looks like the exponent has been reassigned to me after I reported the result. :([/QUOTE]

How does it automatically assign exponents in such a high range?

Wouldn't it normally give you something in the 83M range?

[QUOTE=chalsall;507023][URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/overall/graph/month/"]the graphs[/URL] become uselessly unreadable because of the huge spikes![/QUOTE]

sorry! :smile:

[QUOTE=TheJudger;507113]sorry! :smile:[/QUOTE]

LOL... you'd make the graphs look more interesting and/or boring if you slowly spread out the results over a few days instead of in bulk. :smile:

(honestly though, it all averages out in the end)